New fuel laws

[poteroo]

variable reserve ( I don’t recall exactly what the variable requirement is as I’m not commercial) 

15% of the 'flight fuel' in your plan. We took this to include allowances for taxying, run-ups, and circuits at departure and arrival.

 

i work on 60 minutes notional reserve because I have an antiquated float gauge on the top tank and none in the belly, and I don’t have a fuel flow instrument.

That's a very sensible practice Kaz. Gauges are not to be trusted. The only time I'm inclined to 'believe' them is when they appear motionless against the E mark!  I did finally fly my old C170 to complete fuel exhaustion one day - there was 20 mins flying left in the tanks after the gauges ceased a flicker of movement! That was somewhat comforting.

 

I increase my reserves the longer the actual flight too. So, if doing a private flight over 3 hrs - I use 60 mins fixed reserve.  The further one flys - the greater the likelihood of a weather change, especially along the southern Australian coast in winter and spring.

 

happy days,

 

 

[old man emu]

Calling "Mayday" when not in actual danger is like calling for an ambulance when you bark your knuckles. "Pan"  might be more to the point, but what about a simple advisory call to ATC telling them the situation?

 

On the flip side, is it poor airmanship to undertake a flight with such poor pre-flight planning that all legally available fuel is used before the destination is reached?

 

 

[Fred]

The current instrument 

 

 

 

[facthunter]

The question of using the reserve has often been a subject for consideration and debate, by pilots and legislators. Obviously you carry it in case you need it. as part of your planning responsibilities, BY LAW. in response to a "known"  or forecast. possibility..  Sometimes you will land with reserves intact. Sometimes you will get more tailwind than forecast and your unused reserves  plus some will still be on board. 10% of flight fuel and 30 minutes on other occasions may not be enough. It's easy to use the extra 10% of flight fuel with adverse winds or ice etc  IF you use your reserves en route and CAN divert to somewhere suitable and don't do it to preserve/regain a legal reserve you are negligent.

 

       At the end of the trip, If a plane becomes disabled on the ONLY strip there,  the 30 minutes to DRY won't give you a lot of options. This is for bigger planes with more stringent requirements on runways. Length width and pavement strength.  Different aircraft have different considerations with low fuel operations. (Pitch and acceleration limitations). The pilot is required to know all this and operate the aircraft safely. The over riding consideration is that you operate in the safest manner open to you. That will be the issue if you end up in court. You are not required to operate to the minimum fuel requirements. You are the PIC of your U/L. If you are out of fuel the best of engines won't be any good to you, and the aerodrome you can't quite reach may as well be on the moon.

 

  This one sat for a while. I got called away. Hope it's still relevant. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

As far as it affects us I think the 30 min reserve is OK, like others I have always kept to a 45 min reserve. The silly side of CASA is the use of mayday and I predict that it will be amended when someone in CASA with some common sense wakes up.

 

If you don't like what CASA does there is nothing stopping you from telling them so. I have done it in the past and there have been no repercussions. It may even wake them up.

 

 

[kaz3g]

The new rules are almost certainly a reaction to the Mildura incidents. Proof again that what should apply to heavy metal does not always provide a sensible option for the little guys.

 

A 767 short on fuel with very limited opportunities to divert is a different kettle of fish to a light single able to set down in a wide variety of circumstances. 

 

Kaz

 

 

[facthunter]

 It's a totally different thing with big stuff.. If you have height you can glide 100 miles or more and not use a much fuel on descent at all. If you have just missed out on an approach even going Canberra to Sydney you would optimally climb to about FL210. At lower levels, Jets just gobble fuel. Nev

 

 

[old man emu]

I'm curious to know if, in this day and age, forecast winds are frequently not a reflection of the actual winds below 10,000'.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

A couple of years ago we did a ten day safari with each day being about one to three legs. (We did them yearly from about 2000 to 2016) 

 

I was at the time in debate with a number of our group of old and bolds who were all convinced that compass and clock and forecast winds was the only way to navigate because gps  can be wrong you can lose signal and batteries go flat etc. ( I agree but I was flying with 6 GPS devices so in reality the arguments were a bit moot) 

 

anyway we decided to look at the accuracy of our flying as a comparison. What I found was that for the entire ten days the forecast winds had a significant error at least once per leg 100% of the safari. Not a single leg had correct forecasted wind for the entire leg. 

 

Using compass and clock every leg had some degree of nav error and they drifted a bit depending on the error. But on some legs they had large drift off track. 

 

On the other hand those of using GPS (and yes some GPS in the group failed for short periods but due to multiple GPS devices per aircraft no pilot was without GPS cover st any time) - not a single GPS aircraft was more than half a mile off track and none were geographically embarrassed for the whole safari. 

 

I came away with the feeling that we are in a new age and just like we no longer have to have a back up sextant that multiple GPS devices and EFBs are actually safer than clock and compass and winds that we proved were wrong every time we flew. 

 

 

[dsam]

I plan my recreational outback flights with 45 minutes reserve, and a 10% variable reserve (due to the winds aloft “forecast”  issue mentioned by Jabba-who).  My Dynon Skyview gives me real-time data on wind & direction right from my initial climb all the way to my planned cruising altitude.  I write this “measured wind” data down for each valid cruise altitude for my intended track.  I find that 10% wind variation applies quite often, and I regularly choose a different, more favourable altitude to the one from the forecast.

 

Throughout my flight the Dynon reports calculated range in real-time (ie allowing for actual wind & measured fuel flow).  I’ve never found myself caught out with fuel range & reserve issues thanks to all this technology (and yes I fly with considerable redundancy in this technology).  I also have a visable tube showing the fuel level of each wing tank for absolute certainty, so the Dynon could fail and I still know what is going on with fuel levels.

 

Yes the old fashioned tried-and true ways can work as well, but I prefer the accuracy and labour saving of all my modern devices.

 

 

[spacesailor]

"

 

How much of that 30 mins do you actually have left? How imminent is "imminent"

At four litres p hour leaves about two litres. LoL.

spacesailor

 

 

[jetjr]

If the regulation is rewritten with larger aircraft in mind, why the option of landing in a safe paddock before using reserves?

 

there would be a form or two for an RPT pilot if he did this Id say

 

 

[Downunder]

From CASA VFR guide. http://www.vfrg.com.au/general/radio-telephony-procedures/words-and-phrases/

 

MAYDAY "My aircraft and its occupants are threatened by grave and imminent danger and/or I require immediate assistance"

 

My opinion is that 30 minutes of fuel remaining may not  be a grave and imminent danger, so CASA have now added a second meaning to the word MAYDAY to further confuse people.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

http://www.vfrg.com.au/general/radio-telephony-procedures/words-and-phrases/[/url]MAYDAY "My aircraft and its occupants are threatened by grave and imminent danger and/or I require immediate assistance"

 

My opinion is that 30 minutes of fuel remaining may not  be a grave and imminent danger, so CASA have now added a second meaning to the word MAYDAY to further confuse people.

CASA seems to believe it’s mandate is to confuse people. 

Everything from their using their website, to being able to follow their rules to even the naming of different licences. It seems like calling one licence the recreational pilot certificate and one the recreational pilot licence was crazy and creates huge amount of confusion in prospective pilots trying to work out what they need. 

 

 

[facthunter]

 They do have a good record of confusing things and actually making mistakes . That's something a pilot is not allowed to  do. Pilots operate often under strong time constraints, CASA don't . They take their time usually. Why? Because they can. They can also consult  and have ideas scrutinized and checked.. Therefore they should make LESS mistakes or hopefully NONE. The last thing a flying environment needs is confusion.

 

    A cropduster landing in the next paddock is OK with 10 minutes fuel. Industry pressure if you ignore pilot input, would be in the direction of LESS reserves. People who sit in offices would rather have people in seats rather than extra fuel in tanks. The PILOT in Command, BY LAW as master of the Vessel is RESPONSIBLE for the operational safety of the Aircraft including all aspects of flight management. This is the over riding  consideration.  Nev

 

 

[kaz3g]

 It's a totally different thing with big stuff.. If you have height you can glide 100 miles or more and not use a much fuel on descent at all. If you have just missed out on an approach even going Canberra to Sydney you would optimally climb to about FL210. At lower levels, Jets just gobble fuel. Nev

I think the Mildura problem was that there was nowhere within 100 NM to glide to with a runway long enough to get out again.

 

kaz

 

Renmark now upgraded to more than 1700 m would do it...perhaps Council is looking ahead?

 

 

[facthunter]

 Once you descend , you often don't have the option. of much at all in a Jet. Australia has many areas where an aerodrome going out means much strife in "ranging" to another alternate. If it's a SINGLE runway remote alternate that has it's difficulties also.. IF you carry a bit of extra gas and they put an alternate or holding on something, you can cope with it , IF you are on absolute minimum fuel you have to divert, refuel, accept the delay and extra landing charges that apply and disruption to connections the delay causes. You might even get caught by a Curfew and get stuck on the ground till daylight. A little extra fuel upload can save a lot of money and inconvenience sometimes. Nev

 

 

[Jaba-who]

 Once you descend , you often don't have the option. of much at all in a Jet. Australia has many areas where an aerodrome going out means much strife in "ranging" to another alternate. If it's a SINGLE runway remote alternate that has it's difficulties also.. IF you carry a bit of extra gas and they put an alternate or holding on something, you can cope with it , IF you are on absolute minimum fuel you have to divert, refuel, accept the delay and extra landing charges that apply and disruption to connections the delay causes. You might even get caught by a Curfew and get stuck on the ground till daylight. A little extra fuel upload can save a lot of money and inconvenience sometimes. Nev

But we aren’t talking about how the law affects jets or airlines. It’s about how it affects us. 

This is a recreational forum and this one size fits all law achieves nothing for us. 

 

 

[facthunter]

 Jaba, I was  responding to Kaz. which seams a reasonable thing to do. It's possible the change is a result of the Mildura thing. The change seems very unrelated to what WE do.  You seem to be thinking I support the CASA change which I do not. It's inappropriate and confusing which I've already said.  Nev

 

 

[Jaba-who]

 Jaba, I was  responding to Kaz. which seams a reasonable thing to do. It's possible the change is a result of the Mildura thing. The change seems very unrelated to what WE do.  You seem to be thinking I support the CASA change which I do not. It's inappropriate and confusing which I've already said.  Nev

My apologies. I didn’t really mean to sound as if I objected to us discussing it. I was really meaning that I find it so annoying that CASA make a single rule that affects one sector significantly more negatively than another. 

 

 

[facthunter]

 I'm not surprised by it's apparent remoteness to the way we do things. This disconnect started with Mc Cormick from day one of his being in the job. He opposed the concept of anyone possibly Building and flying planes unless they are certified manufacturers  from overseas. and had at least a PPL The current people don't seem to know who we are,  how we do it, and why we are there... Nev

 

 

[kgwilson]

Skydiving drop planes often take off with less than the designated minimum as they load up with parachutists. We have had 2 run out of fuel (before they were banned from the aerodrome). One of them just made it to the strip but the other didn't & ended up in a swamp.

 

 

[turboplanner]

It was a regulation for GA. I don’t know about RAAus. Private ops had to have 45 mind reserve and commercial ops had to have 45 mins plus a variable reserve ( I don’t recall exactly what the variable requirement is as I’m not commercial) then on top of that if the destination airport has an INTER weather forecast then need 30 mins extra and if a TEMPO then you need and extra 60 minutes reserve. 

 

The diffrence now is that once you reach your reserve you have to tell the world about it by calling Mayday!  Before this you could just quietly use your reserve knowing that you had it for a reason. 

Perhaps too many people who quietly used the reserve had too many discovered incidents perhaps even stuffed up the forced landings and produced some real statistics.

I think the Mayday call has been introduced for Airservices, so they can trigger a full priority for the aircraft. You only have to read through this thread to see the reluctance to call a Mayday or even a Pan.

 

In that case, how would a CTA tower controller know to give you preference to other aircraft.

 

I've mentioned a classic case before where a pilot was unable to get into his home field not far from Moorabbin few years ago, o he came on down only to be told by the tower that the airfield was closed due to weather, so he turned away and went looking for other alternatives, so he returned to Moorabbin, now very short of fuel. The Tower controller told him the airport was closed, they got into an argument which ended with him saying he was coming in whether it was closed or not!  He knew he was out of fuel and stressed beyond recognition, but he hadn't told the tower controller. The ATSB after investigating the incident pointed out that the pilot could have landed at Moorabbin the first time, rather than risk his life running out of fuel, if only he'd called a Mayday On receiving that call the tower controller and services would have immediately done their best to assist him down. This change trips that switch,  making things safer for the pilot. As someone said, the Pilot then has to go through the paperworkmill. However, anyone getting into a situation with less than 30 minutes fuel left deserves to have to explain himself. I can understand to thinking of guys here who mainly fly local, but even if a person flight planned a three hour flight leg, and logged fuel burn every ten minutes,  flights often encounter issues like wind strength/direction,  engine tuning problems, redirection for some reason, and GA aircraft have big tanks that allow you enough safety margin to virtually never put yourself into this 30 minute situation. Some people just can't help themselves and wing it, and I guess this regulation provides more of an incentive not to make a fool of yourself.

 

 

[facthunter]

There seems to have been a lot of "fuel  empty" situations lately. It's happened in the states with RPT that were kept holding till they had dangerously low levels of fuel. or even crashed.  Cars also run out of fuel on the road on freeways or bridges. People  in authority look for some reason for this in the way people "think" or a general attitude of disregard/ couldn't care emerging.. I know of a person running out of fuel doing circuits. There's frequently bad fuel management issues with aircraft..  Some fuel systems are poorly  designed. You can vent fuel overboard in some set ups easily.. Fuel management and Weight & Balance were always a 100% pass mark required  subjects for good reason.. They are unforgiving. in an aircraft..

 

   If your gauges are not accurate and reliable indicators & they usually are not, and even if they are, you can NEVER just go from a gauge indication legally. It has to go from a reliable independent measure, DIP, Empty, FULL plus/minus known figures of fuel quantity. or a fuel  flow totalizer .You must fly so as to compensate for that fact and  in flight your best method will be based on known (proven) fuel flow and elapsed time. That should  mean a rather conservative approach to fuel consumption allowing for a higher rate and carry more margin fuel. If a  trip margin rate isn't required by law that doesn't mean it's not a good idea to have one. The chance of the headwind being more than forecast is about 50%. + logically as direct crosswinds make a headwind component.  The worst error I've had on an RPT format is in excess of 40%. That's really a LARGE figure and could be a show stopper. Complaining about an inaccurate forecast is as useless as complaining your ticket didn't win a lottery. Met just don't accept that responsibility. !0% may therefore not be enough but you must live  and deal with the circumstances you have to operate in..  Nev

 

 

[jetjr]

Why would regulation changes influence pilots more than the risk of accident due to running out risking injury?

 

Id reckon if you entered CTA in low fuel state you might let ATC know that you are in risk of running out in 30 min....not a mayday.

 

The more regulation users consider useless, the tendency is to ignore it and other regulation.